NIST Video: Why the Building (WTC7) Fell

Not sure if this has been posted before, but I just saw it for the first time. Looks like NIST produced a video about WTC7? Must be trying to quell the unrest.

i find it hard to believe NIST's version of events, particularly as larry silverstein said that there was a decision made "to pull it".

www.youtube.com...

I agree, Dont believe "them".
Even from their simulation it doesnt look right.
Plenty of Demolition experts say it was Demolished. There has never been a metal framed building in the world
collapse from fire damage previously. And NY had 3 in one day?
I smell a rat...

reply to post by lunarasparagus


"Having a collapse of this nature is a very rare event."

Yet it happened 3 times on the same day. I also love how they mention it couldn't be explosive because it would be too loud and it would have been heard and picked up by cameras... but they don't mention anything about the thermite theory, even though military grade thermite particles were found in the dust. Pure propaganda.

Originally posted by Lexx790
I agree, Dont believe "them".
Even from their simulation it doesnt look right.
Plenty of Demolition experts say it was Demolished. There has never been a metal framed building in the world
collapse from fire damage previously. And NY had 3 in one day?
I smell a rat...

Just curious, how many is "plenty" and can you source them? And do they still hold this position in 2012?

OOh, magic fires that make all the interior support columns fail simultaneously after 7 hours of fire.

Color me convinced!

With this knowledge perhaps it would smart to evacuate all over lower Manhattan. These high rise buildings are all deathtraps!

I didn't know we had a Department of Comedy, when did this start?

Can anyone who believes WTC 7 was a controlled demolition explain to me what was the perps original plan.

It was by chance that falling debris struck it, set fires and cut off the water supply. So what was the plan ? Just to blow it up as it stood in broad daylight ? Seem likely ?

Originally posted by Alfie1

Can anyone who believes WTC 7 was a controlled demolition explain to me what was the perps original plan.

It was by chance that falling debris struck it, set fires and cut off the water supply. So what was the plan ? Just to blow it up as it stood in broad daylight ? Seem likely ?

How could someone that looks at the building in free-fall, whom deduces the cause is from controlled demo, know what the "plan" was? The plan was to remove the building. Ask a stupid question, get this kind of answer.

Why don't you sit back for a moment, and think about what it takes to drop a building like seven fell. If you would stop thinking about sprinklers for one second, you might realize that a fire would not destroy all the vertical support columns at the same freaking time. It is all about timing and synchronization. If it was caused by debris and fires, some of the sprinklers would have functioned, saving most if not all of the building.

People ether have the common sense and physics understanding to see that this was 100% controlled demo, or they don't. So sorry you don't see the forest, for the trees are right in front of you. The evidence is in the videos of the building dropping. Half the people I talk to do not even know about 7 and it's bs fiasco.

You have seen the videos. You have heard the logic. Yet you ask for the observers to provide you with the thoughts of the terrorizers. Come on man, think B4 you post.

You people sound like a broken record.

reply to post by assspeaker


You don't seem to understand my question. I am not talking about the effects of debris strikes, fires and lack of water but am pointing out that those things happened by pure chance.

In the absence of those things I have to assume that believers in a cd think that it was just going to be blown up anyway without any attempt at disguise. Is that what you believe ?

How did it catch fire in the first place? There were buildings a lot closer to the towers, that did not catch fire.

Originally posted by Cassius666
How did it catch fire in the first place? There were buildings a lot closer to the towers, that did not catch fire.

Not true, have a look at this :-

911research.wtc7.net...

reply to post by Cassius666

How did it catch fire in the first place?

Severed high voltage electrical cables start fires in a heartbeat.

The mystery is not how the buildings were damaged or how they caught fire.
The mystery is how people cannot understand the simplicity of the events that lead to the destruction.

I like to follow the money, and on that deceitful day, its amazing how insurance policies had been raised-EXCESSIVELY, and even the gold taken out from one of the towers previously. If that does not tell you the truth, and you believe the govt story, nothing else you need to know.

reply to post by lunarasparagus
it took ten years for them to come up with this propoganda?seriously it amazes me that they can spew this crap and expect us to believe it.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by lunarasparagus

 

"Having a collapse of this nature is a very rare event."

Yet it happened 3 times on the same day.

I also love how they mention it couldn't be explosive because it would be too loud and it would have been heard and picked up by cameras... but they don't mention anything about the thermite theory, even though military grade thermite particles were found in the dust. Pure propaganda.

Military grade red paint was all that was found. The Jones team doesn't realize it or won't admit it because they enjoy the limelight cast on them by the gullible. Thermite effects cannot be timed for demolitions. All you can do is to start the collapse with thermite. The rest is gravity.

Originally posted by allprowolfy
I like to follow the money, and on that deceitful day, its amazing how insurance policies had been raised-EXCESSIVELY, and even the gold taken out from one of the towers previously. If that does not tell you the truth, and you believe the govt story, nothing else you need to know.

Why are the insurance companies happy to pay out? If it's so obvious to you and other laymen that this was suspicious then why have they not refused to honour the claim? Or at the very least mounted some form of investigation?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

then why have they not refused to honour the claim? Or at the very least mounted some form of investigation?

They did dispute the claim.

The owners said this was two attacks.
The insurance said it was one attack.

At stake was twice the payout.

reply to post by allprowolfy

its amazing how insurance policies had been raised-EXCESSIVELY,

Please provide a link to something other than another conspiracy site.

I would expect the premium to be higher simply because the building was attacked once before. That is no different than when your son wrecks the family car. Is that also a conspiracy?

reply to post by samkent


I meant why have they not disputed the claim in its entirety, especially if - as asserted above - the people who destroyed the buildings are the ones making the claim? It's fraud, pure and simple, on the level of billions of dollars. And if it's obvious to somebody on the internet, I'm not sure why it's not obvious to a huge financial institution.

No answer has been forthcoming.